Though we may justifiably consider Lori Drew to be despicable, she did not violate any federal statute. The government's case was driven by public opinion, not the facts. In this case, public opinion is just a synonym for "tyranny of the masses".

The government chose to use the legal system to make her life a living hell. The government has infinitely deep pockets to fund a lawsuit against a private citizen, but the citizen does not have such pockets. Fighting the government in the courts could drive a private citizen into bankruptcy.

The right thing for Drew to do in this case is to sue the government and, specifically, the lead prosecuting attorney. Drew should sue them for mental distress and seek a multi-million dollar award.

She can sue the gov't... [answers.com] if she get's permission from congress. For some reason, I don't think anyone will be very compassionate about her "mental distress" considering the reason she was put through all of this was by causing "mental distress" of another and subsequent suicide of that individual...

The right thing for Drew to do in this case is to sue the government and, specifically, the lead prosecuting attorney. Drew should sue them for mental distress and seek a multi-million dollar award.

This is true. I want the USA to be seen as the country which lets a murderer(*) go free then allows her to sue the government and win millions.

(*) The US has this quasi-religious fallacy that the mind is somehow less a biological entity than the body, so while we are limited by physical disability/limitation/programming, mental disability/limitation/programming somehow doesn't exist because it runs contrary to the philosophy about man running as a free rational entity. On the contrary, the mind is just another biological function, and driving someone to suicide (i.e. by manipulating their mind until they think of death as the only way out) is as much murdering them as pushing them onto a sword.

re: On the contrary, the mind is just another biological function, and driving someone to suicide (i.e. by manipulating their mind until they think of death as the only way out) is as much murdering them as pushing them onto a sword.

Are you out of your mind?;-) This implies that if an unstable individual listens to music that drives him/her to suicide, then the person(s) that performed and/or wrote the music is guilty of murder.

This implies that if an unstable individual listens to music that drives him/her to suicide, then the person(s) that performed and/or wrote the music is guilty of murder.

Are the performers and writers playing this music intentionally over a period of time in such a way ostensibly as to harass this individual? Is it planned meticulously to cause distress? As interrogators might play loud music for hours every day to break your "unstable" mind while they also aim bright lights at you and threaten you or your family, say? If so, yes, the involved performers/writers are murderers.

If you mean that just listening to this song (e.g. once on the radio) drove the individual to killing himself, then you'll need to provide some evidence that the person's decision to commit suicide came about in a significant way from listening to the song. Do you have one example of this, anywhere? There are many examples in psych and popular literature of people killing themselves after being exposed to a concerted bullying campaign, you see, but I'm yet to find anyone written up who had no intention of suicide before listening to a song, but killed himself right after.

Are you out of your mind?;-) This implies that if an unstable individual listens to music that drives him/her to suicide, then the person(s) that performed and/or wrote the music is guilty of murder.

I suspect the GP would draw a distinction between music driving somebody to suicide and making a fraudulent online identity to drive somebody to suicide. If for no other reason, then on grounds of intent. Music isn't generally written with the expressed purpose of tormenting somebody to the point that they end

Nope, it is right. There is special note however - indent is important. Musician who writes a song about guy who is fed up with life and want peace and happiness isn't targeting someone to make sucide, he just expreses the way he feels sometime (or maybe all the time). If someone it gives last punch to do what they intended to do - well, it's harsh, but more or less it's still their decision to listen to this music.

These adults aim was to harm emotionally girl as much as possible. They had a reason, indent and they did it without any remorse. It could get clasified in some countries as 'driving someone to sucide' and is criminal case. Strangely, US dismiss such responsibility about humans.

People who go around saying that a twelve year old girl should just "toughen up" really piss me off. Even if her attackers and harassers were her own age, it could be brutal and destructive, but in this case the harassers included a group of adults conspiring against her to cause her harm. That has to count for something. It's bullshit to say that a child should just "toughen up" against the orchestrated attacks and manipulations of full grown fucking adults.

If you're a balanced normal adult, you should be able to take a lot of crap and let it roll off your back. But there would certainly be legal consequences if, say, your spouse had serious mental and emotional problems that they were being treat\ed for and you went out of your way to orchestrate their mental torture and abuse and took advantage of their unbalanced state (hell, in many places, you can't take advantage of someone simply in a drunk state and there are protections for consumers who make large purchases and think otherwise within 72 hours!).

And yet... when it comes to a twelve year old girl... she's somehow supposed to be a solid fucking stoic rock. Not only against other children, but fucking adults three or four times her age. Lori Drew reminds me of that movie where the guys pretend to like that girl, but really it's all a game they're playing to make her feel loved and wanted and then they all drop her like a rock on the same day to see if they can collectively drive her to suicide. Except the guy who did that here wasn't a 17 year old boy but a 30-something year old woman and her family.

I'm not saying that we should put in peril every American's rights here just to prosecute this one insignificant twat. I guess considering what the prosecutors were trying her on, the judge did the only right thing that could be done. But that doesn't make the outcome any more pleasant. Justice for all had to trump over justice for one dead kid. And even though it was probably right... it still fucking sucks.

No, she's not meant to be solid as a rock, she's meant to have an emotional support system in place, in the form of her parents, her peers, and her teachers (but most especially her parents). If her parents were not giving her this kind of emotional support then I would be perfectly happy for that to be classed as criminal negligence or wilful neglect, but in the media-powered US judicial system you can't go after the parents. If a child is so emotionally fragile that she can be talked into suicide by someone she has never met face to face, her parents are failing in their duty. If a twelve-year-old is allowed to develop close relationships with people she know knows online without being educated that people online often lie or misrepresent themselves, then her parents are failing in their responsibility.

Having lived through an abused childhood, I have near zero sympathy for kids who are such losers that they can't face life's challenges. Not quite zero, but near it. This girl who committed suicide because some boy she had never met apparently turned on her isn't very far up the food chain from the idiots who choose to "go out in a blaze of glory" while shooting up their school. She was weak and unstable, and she chose to suicide. Her lack of a support group contributed, yes, but

I thought my opinion would be the minority, but it seems well supported here. I'm sorry, but life can be tough and challenging on many levels and if you cannot adapt even at age 12 and decide to off yourself, then I say its called thinning the herd. Sure the story is tragic, but there is a lot of tragedy in life. Lori Drew may be a monster, but she did not kill anyone, or otherwise she would be charged with murder. When I was a child and then later, a teenager, I was harassed on a repeated basis. Obviously

Having lived through an abused childhood, I have near zero sympathy for kids who are such losers that they can't face life's challenges.

I say that people are born with and develop (mostly in very early life) different physical and mental abilities for handling tough circumstances. If you believe that everyone has the potential to act as you did in response to your abuse, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of biology and psychology, and are taking refuge in a non-scientific philosophy. What is more, no two difficult situations are the same, with details being the difference between a seemingly insurmountable and a "merely" challenging situation.

I'm sorry you were abused. Because you chose to reveal this, I ask you please not to turn your unresolved anger into thinly veiled justification for the abuse of others.

I'm not a shrink; I'm a mathematician, if you care to know. But you seem to have issues with shrinks, looking at all your posts in this thread. Why?

Where did I justify anyone abusing anyone else?

"I have near zero sympathy for kids who are such losers that they can't face life's challenges [abuse?]. Not quite zero, but near it. This girl who committed suicide because some boy she had never met apparently turned on her isn't very far up the food chain from [murderers] the idiots who choose to "go out in a blaze of glory" while shooting up their school. She was weak and unstable, and she chose to suicide. Her lack of a support group contributed, yes, but the fact remains, she failed."

Your rhetoric is an exemplar for how to de-humanise someone as a precursor to justification for maltreatment. They're only retards, they're only Catholics, they're only gypsies, they're only Jews, they're only weak. Each post you make here lifts more of the mask over the anger you're feeling in relation to your abuse.

This doesn't change the fact that the weak succumb, and the strong fight.

But those consequences aren't mutually exclusive, are they? The strong fight, yet sometimes they succumb too. You'd succumb to a sufficiently mentally and/or physically stronger oppressor. So would I. So would anyone. Fortunately, neither you nor I have encountered such a person yet. But if you did, I wouldn't dismiss you after your death as a sub-human weakling. Would you do the same to me?

When a child is born with a heart defect, we view it simply as unfortunate. Bad luck, maybe. But when a child has a tendency towards suicidal depression -- or has some other serious mental illness -- we blame the parents. Have you considered just how cruel this is to them?

So I'm wondering if this is why AC responded so violently, as if he had been personally offended. Maybe he was.

We don't blame the parents if their child is born with a tendency towards suicidal depression. We blame the parents for allowing a twelve year old child with a tendency towards suicidal depression to go on the Internet unmonitored and chat to strangers without any kind of safeguards. We don't blame the parent if a child has a heard defect, but we do blame the parents if they allow the child with a heart defect to participate in activities that raise their heart rate and endanger their life without educati

for the last time, in the USofA, if it is not hate speech, not threatening, maybe rude, derogatory, it is called freedom of speech. We understand that it gets abused sometimes, but your choice is either: be able to say what you want (aka comments -> slashdot), or have them moderated by the government. I don't know about you, but I'd rather let a few retarded idiots going "keep your government hands off my medicare" than stifle all speech altogether.

You half right dummy. Your free to say anything you want. Even if it is threatening or hate speech they can't stop you. they can punish you afterwards for the content of hate speech if directed towards someone or if it is viewed as a threat. But free speech does not absolve you of the responsibility for the end result of anything you say. Speech is an action and actions have consequences. If what you say causes death or injury your still responsible.Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to harass som

The idea of punishment and responsibility for crimes rests on the assumption that man is a free rational entity.

This is another silly mistake of US philosophy:

(1) We've had criminal justice systems for much longer than people thought of man this way - they've been justified on anything from Divine Right to "well, I have a bigger stick than you";

(2) Actually, what a criminal justice system does is:(i) Physically stop criminals from doing the same thing again for a certain amount of time;(ii) Discourage minds from telling their bodies to perform acts considered criminal, in the knowledge that they'll be restricted if t

RE: recidivism, it doesn't really help that the best place to learn how to commit crimes is jail. You just stick a few hundred criminals in a big courtyard, what the hell else do you think they're gonna talk about?

Can we throw out another fallacy? You assume that the government has no right or obligation to seek revenge or to seek to punish harmful conduct. You assume that rehabilitation is possible, and that attempting to rehabilitate people is desirable.

Have you looked at the Dugard case in California? That rat bastard who kidnapped Jaycee has a HISTORY of kidnapping and sexual assault. He deserves a bullet in the ear. Or, if the family members of any of the victims wants some hands-on revenge, let them deal w

The government chose to use the legal system to make her life a living hell.

The right thing for Drew to do in this case is to sue the government and, specifically, the lead prosecuting attorney. Drew should sue them for mental distress and seek a multi-million dollar award.

Oh, poor, poor lady. Maybe she should hang herself. After all, she's shown *so* much remorse (*eyeroll*) for her actions.

If there was ever a case of harassment that justified some sort of prosecution, it's this one. For fuck's sake, the woman is -- at the very least -- a sexual predator. Posing as an underage boy to have sexual conversations with a twelve year old girl? What the fuck?! Not to mention adding on the intent to cause serious detriment by the machinations of her contrived plot to the girl.

She deserves everything she gets coming to her in a negative fashion. She and her family haven't even shown the slightest bit of remorse over what they did. Fuck them.

The only distressing thing here is that in order for her to get what she deserves, the liberties of everybody in this country have to be put in jeopardy. So to avoid setting such precedents, we have to smile and nod and say "sure, she clearly contributed to this girl killing herself, but she gets to continue being a free useless member of society pursuing her own happiness, because prosecutors couldn't come up with something more applicable than TOS violations.

All outcomes in this are miserable, in some way. Even the right one, which it seems won-out.

"For fuck's sake, the woman is -- at the very least -- a sexual predator. Posing as an underage boy to have sexual conversations with a twelve year old girl? What the fuck?! Not to mention adding on the intent to cause serious detriment by the machinations of her contrived plot to the girl."

Don't forget this was a neighbor girl, a girl they had gone on vacation with [appletreeblog.com], a girl in her daughter's class that her daughter didn't like. W...T...F. Daughter comes home crying saying "Mommy Mommy I don't like this girl!" and mommy said "Oh? Well I'll get her!" and 47-yr old mommy created a fake online teen boy profile for the sole purpose of harassment, even going to far as to having sexual conversations with the 14 yr old [pysih.com]. If that's not the most fucked up thing I've ever heard.

If Lori was a man and if Megan had lived Lori would be jail for being a sexual predator.

It's the stupid prosecutor's fault, there were plenty of more viable angles that wouldn't endanger everyone's rights, they just wanted to use this one to fluff up their careers. For example, suicide is a crime (odd but true) and she contributed to a minor's decision to commit that crime. Therefor she should be tried for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She deliberately inflicted an emotional damage on a child, so assault. She is a mother who has demonstrated that she doesn't have sufficient emotional maturity to behave responsibly. Perhaps social services should look in to that.

But NO, the prosecutors were determined to grab some headlines and make it a "cybercrime" for their own benefit and so she goes free.

The right thing for Drew to do is shut the fuck up, be grateful for a loophole in the law, change her name, and move far away. If I were that girl's parent, I would spend the rest of my life looking for revenge.

I suppose any time that public opinion agrees with government action (i.e. any time that the government is acting democratically) it's a tyranny of the masses. That really can't be helped, there will always be a small minority that doesn't agree with the rest of society. As long as it's not the same group of people who are the minority every time, it's really not a problem.

Also, it's up to the judicial system to decide whether a federal/state/local statute has been violated, not you. That's what court cases

Well, no; there is no such thing as "simply speech." There are plenty of things that you can write on the internet or issue from your mouth that should rightfully result in you being imprisoned. Such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

Or:1. purposefully playing with the emotions of one specific child (not general rants on the internet)2. a child she knows to have psychologically problems3. over an extended period of time4. directly suggesting suicide after manipulating, setting up, and torturing this child

That's not "simply speech". not REMOTELY "simply speech". This is nothing like me calling Rob Malda a douchebag or advocating for greater acceptance of necrophilia or defending the Baptist church or anything else that someone might object to but is obviously free speech. there are lots of free speech that are odious but not criminal.

This does not consider how complicated the interplay between your rights and your responsibilities are in this world. No, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say

One aspect I consider important in defending limits on speech is that your right to free speech does not include the right to make me listen. In this case, that line was not crossed. She did not force the other party to pay attention in any way; it would have been a single click to reject all messages from her.

That said, this is not the issue here. The issue is that the government chose to attempt to apply a clearly-irrelevant law on the basis that she is a bad person and deserved punishing for someth

I think you are exaggerating. Lynching (including non racial) was an American tradition for two centuries until it got exclusively tied with the Klan and the Klan was discredited. Not a good feature but we were still a free society.

I agree with you for the most part. There are lines that free speech does not get to cross, but this case was a little different. The prosecutors were bending the law to make it fit. As much I despise any adult who would play mind games with a child, that doesn't make it okay to reinterpret some law to make the case.

In Mississippi a while back a lady was accused of selling one of her children. The case got a lot of attention because it turned

Making up a law to fit this situation is fine. That's exactly how a lot of laws are made - see something that people feel should be illegal, make a law that codifies this. What you can't do is pass laws that make things illegal retroactively or, as in this case, try her with something largely unrelated just because we agree that she's a bad person.

And, you're a fucking psychologist, right? You know for certain that Rob Malda is rock stable, that he has never once considered suicide, right? That one more fucking douchebag won't push him over the edge with one more idiot insult? And, because you are a professional psychologist, your insult doesn't imply the same responsibility as some redneck bitch in Missouri improperly getting involved in her daughter's love life - or the life of her daughter's peers.

Get a grip on reality. If Malda suicides after you call him a douchebag, you are just about as responsible as the redneck bitch in Missouri.

We should all be grateful that this particular case has been thrown out. Very few of us on slashdot use our proper names - obviously putting us into the same class of predator as Lori Drew - at least in the mind of an overzealous prosecutor who doesn't like what we might have to say.

Once again, I remind people that the proper course of action in this case would have been CIVIL, not criminal. We don't need more criminal law on the books, there is already enough to make criminals of all of us. We especially don't need criminal law that threatens free speech.

You know for certain that Rob Malda is rock stable, that he has never once considered suicide, right? That one more fucking douchebag won't push him over the edge with one more idiot insult? And, because you are a professional psychologist, your insult doesn't imply the same responsibility as some redneck bitch in Missouri improperly getting involved in her daughter's love life - or the life of her daughter's peers.

If you can't tell the difference between a one-sentence insult about a person that you don't personally know and a prolonged, methodical plan to inflict mental damage on a 12-year-old girl that you know well enough to be aware of her existing psychological problems, then you have no credibility in this discussion.

1." purposefully playing with the emotions of one specific child (not general rants on the internet)"

I disagree with this. Emotions cannot be measured or quantified. How do you measure emotional damages to another person? How do we even know other people have emotions, do we have some way to scan their brain to know what they are feeling? That idea is completely stupid from a legal point of view, but from a moral point of view I can see why its wrong to bully children.

While I believe it's sad that a child had to die, the only one to blame for a suicide is the individual who committed it. You can never blame anyone else for how you feel or what you do in response. You have to accept and own your own emotions. In this case I have sympathy because it's a child involved, but if it were an adult I would not have sympathy about this.

5. "This does not consider how complicated the interplay between your rights and your responsibilities are in this world. No, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say."

Nobody has a responsibility to be nice to you. People can say whatever they want. If you try and censor what people can say you only make the matter worse.Let people express themselves in text on the internet rather than violently.

Free speech is too important to throw it away over feelings being hurt. Free speech isn't about feelings, emotions, or psychology. It serves a vital practical purpose.

If someone harasses you then you can charge them with harassment, there are laws in place already. If someone stalks you then get a restraining order.But if someone hurts your feelings, learn to own your emotions or stop talking to people who hurt your feelings.

This was truly an unfortunate necessity for the best interest of civil liberties. The reasoning that this case was presented would have made criminals of a great many people for things that should not be criminalized. I understand the charges would have essentially criminalized breaking TOS for a web site, something that simply should not be a criminal action. Will used against this evil bitch who does richly deserve prison, it would set a bad legal precedent.

That being said, I would still like to find a way to charge her with something appropriate, such as a lesser murder charge, as well as holding her civilly responsible (such as how oj still got held civilly) responsible for the murders he committed)

She didn't violate the TOS she used a stolen account and password. Just because the person she stole them from was a figment of her imagination doesn't change a thing, She logged in with someone else's password. Thats the definition of unauthorized access.

IIRC, Ms. Drew, family, and an employee went to elaborate lengths to ensnare a susceptible and troubled teenager in a web of lies, followed by making very pointed suggestions for the teenager to commit suicide. What legal basis to prosecute her under is one question... but if the allegations are true, there is certainly a moral basis for ostracizing her, which is apparently what happened in her community.

What Judge Wu ruled is that breaking the contract that you have with a website should be seen as a "civil matter", and should not be treated as a crime. (This is for access that the website owner granted you in return for accepting his terms.) When you exceed the granted access and really hack the system, you still risk criminal prosecution.

P.S. Civil action may cost you tons too, in damages and attorney fees.

I have read the article and the verdict and I would call Judge Wu wise and intelligent.
The doorman allowed Mrs. Drew access to the "private club", where she mixed in with the rest of the crowd and talked with Megan, a girl that, because of her age, should not be allowed in the club anyway. Yes, MySpace's door policy leaves something to be desired; it is assumed that the majority of the visitors have not been 100% honest in filling out their application forms.

How can using a username and password, given to you by the owner of the system, be hacking?
Am I hacking when a co-worker allows me to use his account?
Should violation of "MySpace can change these terms and conditions without giving notice" terms and conditions ever give rise to criminal proscecution?

How can using a username and password, given to you by the owner of the system, be hacking?

if I trick the server to reset the password of an account and send the new password to my email instead of the real users its not Hacking COOL.

Am I hacking when a co-worker allows me to use his account?

Um Yes. co-worker has no authority to allow you to use his account. Authorization can only come from the owner of the computer system. Is it trespassing if i trick your landlord into giving me the keys to your apartment. YES.

Should violation of "MySpace can change these terms and conditions without giving notice" terms and conditions ever give rise to criminal proscecution?

You are authorized by the web server which is providing a public facing service. The law for unauthorized acces is intended to cover services which are not public, e.g. I gain access to the shell via an exploit of your web service. If I break your TOS, you're more then welcome to ban me from your public facing service. Simply saying that I'm breaking your TOS while your server happily performs the function that you specifically designed it to do (serve up web pages) and trying to have me prosecuted is lu

true (although it was no bearing on this case).Its like those cases we've seen of people getting in trouble for taking pictures in a store. It's not trespassing to go into the store. It's not trespassing to take a picture in violation of there policys (a Brick and Mortar TOS sortof). It is trespassing if you stay there after they ask you to leave.

So what I figure is, they knew that the current charges would most likely not stick so they crafted a law to handle the situation. The new law is worse that than even the laws they attempted to prosecute Lori Drew under the first time. They are just too open to interpretation.

Can somebody explain precisely why this woman was not prosecuted under charges of harassment, mental abuse or similar ? Did some lawyer screw up, is the prosecution being twats or is the law just so weird that deliberately trying to hurt somebody by lying to them with the specific intention to cause harm is not criminal?

Don't get me wrong, charging her for violating a ToS was bullshit, but I just don't see why what she did would not be a violation of at least some other law. Libel, slander and bashing ethnic minorities is illegal, so why is deliberately trying to hurt a minor through carefully targeted verbal abuse, lies and harassment not? That it happened over the Internet is surely tangential to the real issue here, which is that a very cruel woman set out to mentally abuse a child.

I'm not sure how she meets the criteria for harassment. That requires involuntary / forced contact. Meier engaged in the contact voluntarily but under false pretenses. I don't know what mental abuse is i'm not sure any state has a law against it.

Elements:
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendantâ(TM)s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendantâ(TM)s act is the cause of the distress; and
4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendantâ(TM)s conduct.

"mental abuse" isn't a charge i have ever heard of someone being prosecuted, it's not harassment because the actions don't fit the charge at all

as for libel, slander, and bashing ethnic minorities. the first two are not illegal, they are civil torts, and the third is completely legal. Go start your own white power website and see what happens, your neighbors will think less of you, your family will think less of you, but you won't be arrested.

I'm of the belief that she knew what she was doing and chose to let this girl die, even goading her on to kill herself. I don't see how this is, in any way, different than doing so in person. She should be held accountable for her actions. This woman is the scum of the earth.

I've had words with people before but I've never attempted to talk somebody into committing suicide. I also tend not to get into arguments with minors. What in the world could possibly lead somebody to think this ever sounded like a good idea?

It is different because there was no physical presence involved. The victim could have turned off the computer but didn't.

This goes to the basic idea that all "crimes" committed through the Internet cannot be prosecuted. There is only a "virtual" presence involved and we can't have people's "virtual" presence being prosecuted, now can we? Nothing is really criminal on the Internet. From fraud to piracy to theft and vandalism, there is an unlimited justification that none of this is really happening in t

First, Judge Wu's decision has nothing to do with whether Drew's actions constituted "cyberbullying" or whether she deserved to be prosecuted for her ill-treatment of Megan. All of that was decided long ago, first in Missouri, where the AG said Drew had violated no existing statute, nor in the Federal prosecution where the jury refused to treat Drew's actions as felonious.

What was left to determine was whether Drew's act of creating a fictitious identity at MySpace, in contravention of its Terms of Service, constituted a misdemeanor under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). When Congress passed this law its intent was to criminalize activities like hacking into computers at banks or military contractors. After public outcry at the fact Drew was not convicted of anything for her actions, Justice Department attorneys in California (where the MySpace computers were housed) prosecuted Drew for violating the CFAA.

Judge Wu's decision is extremely cautious and proscribed in many ways. First, he specifically states that an "intentional" breach of a website's Terms of Service may come under the purview of the CFAA:

....this Court concludes that an intentional breach of the [MySpace Terms of Service] can potentially constitute accessing the MySpace computer/server without authorization and/or in excess of authorization under the statute.

What's really at issue is whether someone can be prosecuted for violating the TOS, or whether MySpace's specific TOS were too vague to provide reasonable grounds for criminal prosecution. "Vagueness" in this case means whether "individuals of 'common intelligence' are on notice that a breach of the terms of service contract can become a crime under the CFAA." His ruling rejects the Justice Department's case on the grounds that the MySpace TOS are simply too vague to provide a basis for prosecution. In particular, he ruled that the TOS were so expansive that a wide variety of behaviors would become criminalized (lying about one's age or weight, for instance):

In sum, if any conscious breach of a website's terms of service is held to be sufficient by itself to constitute intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization, the result will be that section 1030(a)(2)(C) becomes a law "that affords too much discretion to the police and too little notice to citizens who wish to use the [Internet]."

My guess is that attorneys for popular websites, particularly social networking sites, will be revising their TOS to comply with Wu's decision.

So an adult posting as a child having intimate and/or sexual conversations with a child in order to later manipulate and ridicule them is merely "being mean"? If Lori Drew were a man, she'd be thrown away in prison for life for for being a sexual predator engaging in sexual conversations with a twelve year old girl online.

Her actions and intentions (and the results) could reasonably (in spirit, though certainly not law) be seen as manslaughter. Adults have measures they can take, legally, to retaliate against harassment and various forms of emotional and verbal abuse, but if you're a twelve year old little girl you should "just toughen the fuck up"?

The problem here is that this woman is a petty, vile, remorseless cunt (an applicable use of that word in this case which nobody can deny) that did a despicable thing that absolutely contributed significantly to the death of a child. Because the case was so mishandled (there are already laws which should have allowed certain prosecution without the ridiculous liberty-curtailing precedents involved here), the only way to make sure she gets what she deserves is to put the civil liberties of every person in the country in peril.

I'm not so sure that the 19 year old's actions could not be seen as manslaughter, i.e. taking a mentally disturbed person causing great emotional trauma and encouraging suicide as a solution. If that were the case then Drew is part of a conspiracy. But the Missouri DA screwed this up by giving the 19 year old immunity.

No the same way that if you push someone you don't go to jail for murder; while if you push them in front of a train you do. The 19 year old did far more than just tell someone something mean. She spent hours developing a close emotional connection with a child (not a peer) prior to telling them to kill themselves.

Over the internet, never met in person, the girls parents knew EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN ITS ENTIRETY, yet noone wants to blame the parents? This is a CLASSIC case of what every slashdotter talks about where the parent's don't have to take any responsibility for their children. Read about the case, the girl's parents knew she was in a terrible place emotionally cause of this internet boyfriend she had, 'but she still went on the computer even though we would tell her not to' is their excu

No, not jail. But you should probably go back to Philosophy 101: Intro to Logic for using such a bad analogy.

Certain portions of any society's population are more easily victimized (and more vulnerable to predation or exploitation) than others. Our legal system takes that into account, as it should, and offers those groups greater protection. That is why an adult can be prosecuted if they allow an infant to drown in a bathtub, but not if instead it had been a non-physically-or-mentally-handicapped adult that drowned. It's also why it's considered a greater crime to murder someone with a handicap, a child, or a senior citizen.

The fact of the matter is, many mental disabilities make the sufferer more susceptible to suggestion or external influence. The victim in this case was an adolescent girl suffering from clinical depression. In fact, she was even on multiple mood-stabilizers. It should be quite obvious that someone in that situation is already predisposed to self-harm and suicide without others bullying them. But when someone deliberately causes psychological harm on such an individual, the situation becomes even more dangerous. In this case, it was a grown woman preying on the psychological vulnerability of a 13-year-old child, and the results proved fatal.

If I approached a man standing on the ledge of a cliff and intentionally frightened them, and as a result they lost their balance and fell to their death, I would certainly be held accountable (and charged with involuntary manslaughter). If a suicidal person is standing on a ledge on a tall building, and I tell them to jump&mdashand they do, should I not be held accountable as well? Now, in this case, the woman had to make much more of an effort to get this girl to commit suicide. I'm certain she had no intent to kill, but she is still potentially liable for involuntary manslaughter or at least criminal negligence (though not likely as this is a clear case of malicious intent).

If you hang a noose in front of the house of a black person, and it hurts their feelings, should you be charged and go to prison?

I think a much better question is, "Why are you (and lots of others, apparently) so interested in getting away with being a mean-spirited shit to people most likely to suffer real emotional hurt from it under the guise of 'freedom of speech'?"

Whatever happened to the notion that others' feelings ought to matter to us as much as our own?

Criminal responsibility? Sorry. If I call you a flaming homosexual moron, and you go commit suicide, I've not committed a criminal act. Of course, that goes both ways - if you call ME the same thing, and I commit suicide, you aren't criminally liable either.

If you call me a "flaming homosexual moron", you have no idea of what my mental state is. You don't know me. I am a complete stranger. However, this case didn't involve complete strangers. This case involved an adult who had some knowledge of the mental state of her victim. This involved a case of an adult who went out of her way to cultivate a lie; create the deception of a personal relationship with the girl. This adult set up an emotional unstable teenager to be her most vulnerable. And then that

Huh? No one said she should be charged with murder (which is what would happen if she were held responsible for what the girl did to herself). But she is still responsible for the direct consequences of her actions.

Even if the girl didn't end up committing suicide from the psychological harm that women inflicted upon her (with clear malicious intent), an adult should still not be allowed to bully a child without legal consequences. Heck, disciplinary actions are even taken on a 1st or 2nd grader who picks on another kid at school, so why would an adult doing much more harm to a child be given a free ride?

" an adult should still not be allowed to bully a child without legal consequences."

let me fix that: an adult should not be allowed to harass a child without legal consequences. This should be fairly obvious, we don't have a law against that already? I mean I don't think Lori Drew should serve a life sentence, but I'd be very happy if she served at least 6 months, and several years would not be unreasonable since this was no accident, this was a targeted attack at a particular teenage and Lori spent quite some time harassing the child, even going to far to pretend to be a child herself.

How is it that an adult harassed a child to the point of committing suicide and all we could throw at her is a TOS violation? Men just trying to have sex with teenage girls get jail time, but succeeding in coercing suicide gets nothing?

First, the mythical message where she told her to kill herself or that "the world would be a better place without her" has never been found (even if it was found that she said the world would be a better place without her, how the hell can you call stating an opinion a crime? Good god, I'm terrified of the kind of politicians you vote for with views like that...) - on anyone's myspace account or server. Secondly, the girl killed herself after having an argument with her mother about her spending too much time online and her swearing.

Lori Drew being mean to the girl had nothing to do with her committing suicide. It was her crappy relationship with her parents that resulted in her suicide and her parents, like most Americans these days, wanted a scapegoat to avoid taking the blame for being crappy parents.

No. Criminally this was a manslaughter case if it was anything at all. One that had to be brought in Missouri. Drew didn't particularly harass the child. One element of harassment is the repetitive nature of the offense. You don't just pester someone once; you do it over and over again. Megan didn't get an email every day for a year saying "Nobody likes you; today's a good day to kill yourself."

Instead, what Drew did do is negligently bring about the conditions which resulted her death. "Talked her into killing herself" is a tough case to prove though I seem to recall that when Manson talked a bunch of people into killing others it was possible to put him in jail.

Somewhat better odds of pursuing a wrongful death suit. That's a civil rather than criminal case. Still not great odds and still has to be brought in Missouri, not California.

No Its MURDER. Manslaughter means there was no intent. The act of committing fraud in order to do it creates an intent to injure.Killing someone with no intent to injury = ManslaughterKilling someone with intent to injure but not kill = second degree murder

There was no intent to cause physical injury. This is like yelling fire in a theater and someone is trampled to death in the crush at the emergency exit. There was no intent to specifically harm anybody, yet a reasonable person would understand that someone could be killed as a result of such misbehavior.

No. Criminally this was a manslaughter case if it was anything at all. One that had to be brought in Missouri. Drew didn't particularly harass the child. One element of harassment is the repetitive nature of the offense. You don't just pester someone once; you do it over and over again. Megan didn't get an email every day for a year saying "Nobody likes you; today's a good day to kill yourself."

I see. So Drew was able to cultivate this false relationship with the girl in order to inflict emotional damage all with a single message? It didn't take a pattern of repeated communications to pull this off?

I am sure that eventually the horrible wrong she committed will be balanced - Karma has a way of working things out !

No it doesn't. Unfortunately, as much as I would like to say that there is something to that, karma is total bullshit. I mean, Hitler committed suicide before we could get to him -- how's that for karma? Or the evil, scumfuck businessmen who defraud the world of billions of dollars only to die of natural causes after getting fat, rich, and happy at the expense of the world? I wish there were something to be said for karma, but alas, it seems that ordinary means of revenge and retribution are all we have. As for Lori Drew, she will be punished by those around her for the rest of her life -- everyone knows who she is and what she has done and she will be an outcast forever. There's nothing mystical about that.

There's a reality TV show I saw the other day where the main character balances Karma by getting rid of bad people after the court system fails to do so. The show is called Dester or something like that.

For a given value of bullying, where bullying means never meeting the person in the real world and only sending them messages through a trivially-blocked panel, yes. Unfortunately, it also means that failing to bring up your child with any kind of emotional resilience, so that a person represented only by characters on a screen can talk them into suicide doesn't count as criminal neglect, which is a much sadder precedent.

Does this imply that bullying someone (especially underage or pre-teen childeren), by including but not limited to, claiming that 'The world would be a better place without you', up till the point that they feel so miserable that they commit suicide, is somehow not illegal and cannot be punished by law ?

No, it means that the prosecution was completely incompetent. Drew was charged with unauthorized access to a computer system because she violated the Terms of Service of the web site, which nearly everyone would agree should not be illegal. The case actually had nothing to do with harassment, abuse, or manslaughter.

The world is a bad and cruel place. Everyone needs to learn that at some point.

You're right, but this is a case where somebody has abused their experience and better understanding of the human psyche in order to augment the nature of the harrassment that was ocurring. The woman had been on this planet for 20 years longer than her victim. In that time, she'd learned a great deal about what buttons to push and what to avoid saying. She had a great deal more experience, and that's really the gravity of the cri

It is possible that you are not a skilled lawyer. Starting with the easy stuff first...

>Giving false info to obtain something of value is a crime. PERIOD.

Incorrect. First, I may mistakenly give false information by, for example, accidentally transposing digits in a phone number on a form. Not a crime.

Second, I may give false information that is not material to the transaction. For example, when dealing with someone who has the discretion to complete a transaction with me or someone else but not both

Its possible I'm not, but its definite your not.The parties involved in a contract will always be material. duh.False clearly implies intentional. Incorrect can be accidental.Contracts are entered by two parties in agreement If one party is falsifying its identity there is no agreement.